Blockbuster Deal: Ponson to STL

[Mizzou]

Average pitcher? I disagree.

 

4.09 ERA in 2002, and a 3.75 ERA in 2003. While it's nothing to write home about, I'll take it from a #5 starter...especially one that's going to be making practically nothing.

 

LOL. Why do people always ignore recent bad years and point out when a player was good years ago?

 

What about his 5.30 ERA in 2004 and his 6.21 :shock: ERA last year?

 

I too disagree that he's an average pitcher... he's a terrible pitcher.

[PieOnMyHands]

LOL. Why do people always ignore recent bad years and point out when a player was good years ago?

 

What about his 5.30 ERA in 2004 and his 6.21 :shock: ERA last year?

 

I too disagree that he's an average pitcher... he's a terrible pitcher.

 

Because it's evident that he was a drunken blob during the last two years?

 

He supposedly quit drinking and lost weight. St. Louis tried to trade for him in 2003...

 

Maybe this is why people are so shocked that players come to St. Louis and magically perform well? If anything, I think that Walt does exactly what a Moneyball GM doesn't do -- he takes into consideration the personality of players and uses that to help project how they'll do. (IE: signing Grudz cheap knowing that he he was playing for a "big" contract to finish his career off)

[CardsFanInChiTown]

LOL. Why do people always ignore recent bad years and point out when a player was good years ago?

 

What about his 5.30 ERA in 2004 and his 6.21 :shock: ERA last year?

 

I too disagree that he's an average pitcher... he's a terrible pitcher.

 

Because it's evident that he was a drunken blob during the last two years?

 

He supposedly quit drinking and lost weight. St. Louis tried to trade for him in 2003...

 

Maybe this is why people are so shocked that players come to St. Louis and magically perform well? If anything, I think that Walt does exactly what a Moneyball GM doesn't do -- he takes into consideration the personality of players and uses that to help project how they'll do. (IE: signing Grudz cheap knowing that he he was playing for a "big" contract to finish his career off)

 

Even though I like the signing don't get too excited about the fat bird, he'll most likely suck.

[TrueBlueCubFan]

LOL. Why do people always ignore recent bad years and point out when a player was good years ago?

 

What about his 5.30 ERA in 2004 and his 6.21 :shock: ERA last year?

 

I too disagree that he's an average pitcher... he's a terrible pitcher.

 

Because it's evident that he was a drunken blob during the last two years?

 

He supposedly quit drinking and lost weight. St. Louis tried to trade for him in 2003...

 

Maybe this is why people are so shocked that players come to St. Louis and magically perform well? If anything, I think that Walt does exactly what a Moneyball GM doesn't do -- he takes into consideration the personality of players and uses that to help project how they'll do. (IE: signing Grudz cheap knowing that he he was playing for a "big" contract to finish his career off)

 

Even though I like the signing don't get too excited about the fat bird, he'll most likely suck.

He can't do any worse than what Morris did v.s. the Cubs in 05'? or can he?

[PieOnMyHands]

Even though I like the signing don't get too excited about the fat bird, he'll most likely suck.

 

Show me where I said he won't suck. All I'm saying is that, again, this is a low-risk, high-reward deal. Nothing more, nothing less. Yeah, he probably will suck. And guess what? We pay him practically nothing to do that. What if he's good, though? Or even decent? Then we pay him accordingly.

 

Most people view him as a fat blob. Maybe that's all he is? However, I'm just jumping in Walt's defense before the outcome of the situation turns out. Because if, in the unlikely event, that Ponson turns out to be a good signing... we're going to hear, "OMFG THE CARDS ARE TEH LUCKEE!!!!!!!!" No, they're not. Their front office makes smart moves and they pay off.

 

Would we rather sign Jacque Jones for $5 million, or sign five players for a million that have the potential to hit like Jones? That's basically the St. Louis philosphy. They're not lucky, they're smart.

 

It's like the Tony Womack situation... we traded for him, in need of a second baseman. I believe he played for the league minimum. What if he hadn't turned out well? Too bad. No loss. People make it sound like we lock players up into blockbuster contracts and they just magically start playing at that level, or something.

[PieOnMyHands]

Oh, and the #5 starter/Jason Marquis post a little bit before this were in response to the, "at best, he'll post a 4.10 ERA..."

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Even though I like the signing don't get too excited about the fat bird, he'll most likely suck.

 

Show me where I said he won't suck. All I'm saying is that, again, this is a low-risk, high-reward deal. Nothing more, nothing less. Yeah, he probably will suck. And guess what? We pay him practically nothing to do that. What if he's good, though? Or even decent? Then we pay him accordingly.

 

Most people view him as a fat blob. Maybe that's all he is? However, I'm just jumping in Walt's defense before the outcome of the situation turns out. Because if, in the unlikely event, that Ponson turns out to be a good signing... we're going to hear, "OMFG THE CARDS ARE TEH LUCKEE!!!!!!!!" No, they're not. Their front office makes smart moves and they pay off.

 

Would we rather sign Jacque Jones for $5 million, or sign five players for a million that have the potential to hit like Jones? That's basically the St. Louis philosphy. They're not lucky, they're smart.

 

It's like the Tony Womack situation... we traded for him, in need of a second baseman. I believe he played for the league minimum. What if he hadn't turned out well? Too bad. No loss. People make it sound like we lock players up into blockbuster contracts and they just magically start playing at that level, or something.

 

Your right, I put words in your mouth. I agree with everything you said, in fact I think I said the same things earlier in this thread. One thing, we are paying him 1m - a little more than nothing.

[PieOnMyHands]

Your right, I put words in your mouth. I agree with everything you said, in fact I think I said the same things earlier in this thread. One thing, we are paying him 1m - a little more than nothing.

 

this is from Jocketty:

 

"Sidney has made it very clear to us that he is committed to turning both his life and his career around. Hes a tremendous talent who has made mistakes, but hes been making huge strides in trying to return himself to a much better quality of life. There were several teams interested in him, and we feel that our organization can provide him a solid basis for a fresh start if he is serious about turning his career around."

 

While it's not like Walt would come out and say, "Hey, Sidney is a fat blob and we're going to sign him 'cause w're the Cards and we're lucky and we'll know he'll pan out," I think there's some truth to his statement. They wanted him in 2003, and they believe that he's turned his life (and as a result, his career) around, and that he'll revert back to a pitcher that's much closer to that 2003 "version."

[goonys evil twin]

While it's not like Walt would come out and say, "Hey, Sidney is a fat blob and we're going to sign him 'cause w're the Cards and we're lucky and we'll know he'll pan out," I think there's some truth to his statement.

 

Bill Simmons wrote a funny article a few years back about the cliche storylines every spring training for every club. One of them was "the guy who struggled because of personal issues but is turning around his life and will now be good" or something close. This is the type of thing you hear every winter and spring.

[PieOnMyHands]

While it's not like Walt would come out and say, "Hey, Sidney is a fat blob and we're going to sign him 'cause w're the Cards and we're lucky and we'll know he'll pan out," I think there's some truth to his statement.

 

Bill Simmons wrote a funny article a few years back about the cliche storylines every spring training for every club. One of them was "the guy who struggled because of personal issues but is turning around his life and will now be good" or something close. This is the type of thing you hear every winter and spring.

 

Your point? I basically said to take it with a grain of salt. Do you believe that Jocketty believes that he's making a bad investment? Do you?

 

Low-risk, high-reward.

[goonys evil twin]

While it's not like Walt would come out and say, "Hey, Sidney is a fat blob and we're going to sign him 'cause w're the Cards and we're lucky and we'll know he'll pan out," I think there's some truth to his statement.

 

Bill Simmons wrote a funny article a few years back about the cliche storylines every spring training for every club. One of them was "the guy who struggled because of personal issues but is turning around his life and will now be good" or something close. This is the type of thing you hear every winter and spring.

 

Your point? I basically said to take it with a grain of salt. Do you believe that Jocketty believes that he's making a bad investment? Do you?

 

Low-risk, high-reward.

 

Low-risk, medium reward.

Ponson wasn't that good when he was highly touted.

[PieOnMyHands]

Low-risk, medium reward.

Ponson wasn't that good when he was highly touted.

 

When you factor in that he's only expected to be an end-of-the-rotation guy and when you consider how little he's going to make, I'm going to call it high reward.

 

From a purely performance-based standpoint... yeah.. medium-reward. But other things considered, it has a big payoff.

 

Was Grudz a high reward or medium reward? We paid him $1 million. He didn't overwhelm anyone offensively. In fact, he was average in that department. I consider him high reward, though, because he was a big benefit to this team and it was a risk-less investment to make.

[wolf stansson]

FAT

that's exactly what i said.

[wolf stansson]

The Cardinals rotation has more questions this year than in recent years.

 

Uhhh...No?

 

Last year Carp was coming off the bicep injury, Morris had shoulder surgery, Mulder with the horrific second half and lingering hip questions. Suppan and Marquis were our only healthy returns.

 

Previous year we went in with Suppan who had never done anything, Woody Williams who had massive injuries the previous year, Morris with the bad ankle and shoulder, Carpenter who hadn't pitched in two years, Jason Marquis who had never stuck in the majors yet.

 

Before that Garrett Stephenson, Morris, Williams, and other turds.

 

We're used to rotation questions.

[CardsFanInChiTown]

FAT

that's exactly what i said.

 

I guess he's been boxing to take the weight off...

 

http://carcass.hp.infoseek.co.jp/prisoner/punchout/round3/king/kingkuchi.gif

[Ding Dong Johnson]

FAT

that's exactly what i said.

 

I guess he's been boxing to take the weight off...

 

http://carcass.hp.infoseek.co.jp/prisoner/punchout/round3/king/kingkuchi.gif

 

I think your Willie McGee avatar was better looking. Man, he's fat.

[PieOnMyHands]

Ponson's base salary is apparently $1 million; the contract is worht up to $2.5 million in incentives.

 

This does leave me a little bit sour on the situation... I can't say I like the financial figures. Then again, the free agent market is out of control.

 

So I'm not longer as high as I was on the deal, but I still think it could turn out to be good. I was thinking we would've paid him half of what we did..

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Low-risk, medium reward.

Ponson wasn't that good when he was highly touted.

 

When you factor in that he's only expected to be an end-of-the-rotation guy and when you consider how little he's going to make, I'm going to call it high reward.

 

From a purely performance-based standpoint... yeah.. medium-reward. But other things considered, it has a big payoff.

 

Was Grudz a high reward or medium reward? We paid him $1 million. He didn't overwhelm anyone offensively. In fact, he was average in that department. I consider him high reward, though, because he was a big benefit to this team and it was a risk-less investment to make.

 

But if Reyes is going to be in the rotation, he doesn't have a spot.

[treebird]

this should be in rivalries so i wouldnt have to read it

[CardsFanInChiTown]

Low-risk, medium reward.

Ponson wasn't that good when he was highly touted.

 

When you factor in that he's only expected to be an end-of-the-rotation guy and when you consider how little he's going to make, I'm going to call it high reward.

 

From a purely performance-based standpoint... yeah.. medium-reward. But other things considered, it has a big payoff.

 

Was Grudz a high reward or medium reward? We paid him $1 million. He didn't overwhelm anyone offensively. In fact, he was average in that department. I consider him high reward, though, because he was a big benefit to this team and it was a risk-less investment to make.

 

But if Reyes is going to be in the rotation, he doesn't have a spot.

 

Ponson might be a swingman? Trade Marquis? I would be shocked if Reyes wasn't a starter.

[PieOnMyHands]

But if Reyes is going to be in the rotation, he doesn't have a spot.

 

You're right. That's why Jason Marquis would be traded if Ponson were to make the rotation. But Walt wouldn't trade Marquis and hope that Ponson pans out... would he? I highly doubt it.

 

So then you basically have to wait until spring training to evaluate Ponson; but the problem with that is that the available outfielders via trades will almost certainly have dropped by then.

 

It will be interested to see how this situation pans out. Reyes will be in the rotation, though.

[Blueheart05]

 

I absolutely love the moves Walt is making this offseason. Some of them (not necessarily this one) are going to surprise some people. Low-risk, high-reward. While they look ugly on the surface... if they're bad, what do you lose? Oh, that's right -- practically nothing!

 

If they don't work out the Cardinals are not a strong team and may not win the divisison or go to the playoffs. I'm sorry but I don't see how the moves made, thus far, have improved the team over last year's squad. I don't even think their equal (and that's not being said out of Cubs' bias). I'm trying to be objective.

[PieOnMyHands]

If they don't work out the Cardinals are not a strong team and may not win the divisison or go to the playoffs. I'm sorry but I don't see how the moves made, thus far, have improved the team over last year's squad. I don't even think their equal (and that's not being said out of Cubs' bias). I'm trying to be objective.

 

Julian Tavarez - 5.10 post-ASB ERA; Looper will replace him and likely will do a better job, especially since our defense is so groundball-friendly.

 

Ray King - 4.80 post-ASB ERA; Rincon sucked last year, but career-wise, lefties have hit something like .217 off of him. La Russa had so little faith in Ray last year that he didn't use him one time in the playoffs. (part of that had to do with King's dad passing away late in the season, but that doesn't explain a -complete- lack of use the entire playoffs)

 

Reggie Sanders - .866 OPS last year. He's going to be missed. However, had he come back, he would not have repeated that production. A Bigbie/Byrnes platoon could work very well. Eric Byrnes is a player I would really like to see... Bigbie has been surprisingly efficient over righties over his career.

 

Cal Eldred - Gone, but he'll be replaced by Brad Thompson, who did very well last year.

 

Mark Grudzielanek - .741 OPS in '05. His defense will be missed... You don't pay a player $3 million+ to play great defense while being a mediocre offensive talent... unless you're Jim Hendry. (*cough* Jacques Jones *cough*).

 

Matt Morris - 4.72 ERA and 4.11 ERA in 2004 and 2005, respectively. What's the big loss, again? Sure, he could pan out... but would you rather take a $8-9 million risk, or a $1 million risk? While Ponson can't be a Matt Morris caliber pitcher (assuming they were both healthy), it's a much, much "safer" risk to take. Besides, Anthony Reyes was waiting in the wings to replace Morris. See ya, thanks for the memories.

 

Al Reyes - lost to surgery. This one will hurt, but it was out of our control.

 

John Mabry - .188 post-ASB batting average. See ya! He can play everywhere, but he struggled with injuries last year and it looks like he has lost bat speed. I really like Mabes, but it was time to let him move on.

 

Abraham Nunez - .704 OPS in a career year. He plays a slick defense at third base and can also play second... but, uh, take your money and run.

 

Larry Walker - 315 at-bats on the season. Useless come playoff times. Walker's 2004 season was fantastic... but, quite frankly, his time in the league is done. He would've been a great addition to a lineup had he stayed healthy, but he missed so much that there isn't a huge a loss in production as most think.

 

Is Albert Pujols still on this team? Yep. Scott Rolen? Uh-huh. In fact, that's like adding Rolen to this team. What about Jim Edmonds? Still there. Mark Mulder? Yep. Chris Carpenter? Of course!

 

The nucleus of this team is still here. If you want to dwell on who we lost, then have at it. But if you really examing the situation, a lot of departures does not mean we'll be saying goodbye to a lot of wins. No, this team may not be a lock for the playoffs next year. However, the losses to the team are no where near as dramatic as some think.

[Blueheart05]

If they don't work out the Cardinals are not a strong team and may not win the divisison or go to the playoffs. I'm sorry but I don't see how the moves made, thus far, have improved the team over last year's squad. I don't even think their equal (and that's not being said out of Cubs' bias). I'm trying to be objective.

 

Julian Tavarez - 5.10 post-ASB ERA; Looper will replace him and likely will do a better job, especially since our defense is so groundball-friendly.

 

Ray King - 4.80 post-ASB ERA; Rincon sucked last year, but career-wise, lefties have hit something like .217 off of him. La Russa had so little faith in Ray last year that he didn't use him one time in the playoffs. (part of that had to do with King's dad passing away late in the season, but that doesn't explain a -complete- lack of use the entire playoffs)

 

Reggie Sanders - .866 OPS last year. He's going to be missed. However, had he come back, he would not have repeated that production. A Bigbie/Byrnes platoon could work very well. Eric Byrnes is a player I would really like to see... Bigbie has been surprisingly efficient over righties over his career.

 

Cal Eldred - Gone, but he'll be replaced by Brad Thompson, who did very well last year.

 

Mark Grudzielanek - .741 OPS in '05. His defense will be missed... You don't pay a player $3 million+ to play great defense while being a mediocre offensive talent... unless you're Jim Hendry. (*cough* Jacques Jones *cough*).

 

Matt Morris - 4.72 ERA and 4.11 ERA in 2004 and 2005, respectively. What's the big loss, again? Sure, he could pan out... but would you rather take a $8-9 million risk, or a $1 million risk? While Ponson can't be a Matt Morris caliber pitcher (assuming they were both healthy), it's a much, much "safer" risk to take. Besides, Anthony Reyes was waiting in the wings to replace Morris. See ya, thanks for the memories.

 

Al Reyes - lost to surgery. This one will hurt, but it was out of our control.

 

John Mabry - .188 post-ASB batting average. See ya! He can play everywhere, but he struggled with injuries last year and it looks like he has lost bat speed. I really like Mabes, but it was time to let him move on.

 

Abraham Nunez - .704 OPS in a career year. He plays a slick defense at third base and can also play second... but, uh, take your money and run.

 

Larry Walker - 315 at-bats on the season. Useless come playoff times. Walker's 2004 season was fantastic... but, quite frankly, his time in the league is done. He would've been a great addition to a lineup had he stayed healthy, but he missed so much that there isn't a huge a loss in production as most think.

 

Is Albert Pujols still on this team? Yep. Scott Rolen? Uh-huh. In fact, that's like adding Rolen to this team. What about Jim Edmonds? Still there. Mark Mulder? Yep. Chris Carpenter? Of course!

 

The nucleus of this team is still here. If you want to dwell on who we lost, then have at it. But if you really examing the situation, a lot of departures does not mean we'll be saying goodbye to a lot of wins. No, this team may not be a lock for the playoffs next year. However, the losses to the team are no where near as dramatic as some think.

 

I'm not sure why you're so confident about Rolen; You have no real idea what he's going to provide coming back from injury. That would be like me being confident that Kerry Wood will make 35 starts. I just don't see the Cardinals as the runaway winner this year. Of course, its possible that another bat or impact pitcher will be signed but right now I see a lot more questions throughout the lineup and pitching staff.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

So are we still taking bets on what will be higher: Ponson's ERA, weight, or blood alcohol level.

 

I predict ERA, but only by a little.

 

ERA- 5.22

Weight: 320

Blood Alcohol 2.3

 

Those are my pre-season predictions.